Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Ref'ing thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Re: Ref'ing thread

    These games still count in the standings. Of course we'll tune in to watch our team then get pissed off all over again next Sunday and Monday.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Ref'ing thread

      This is too funny. Can't watch any major sports programs today because of the white knuckled tantrums on every single one. And the best part is, all this outrage and indignation is over a call that the replacement refs actually managed to get right. Well, except the push off, which there is a 0% chance the regular refs would have called. In fact, despite all their faults, the one thing I have respected about the replacements is that they actually call offensive PI more than once a season. People have been waiting since week 1 for these guys to blow a call and cost a team the game. I guess they got tired of waiting, so they are going to use this as a "close enough" and start the rants they have been practicing for a month now. Add in the echo chamber effect of the internet, and we are now sitting at defcon dumb.

      Edit:
      This entire thing reminds me of the Tom Brady tuck game. No matter how many times the rules were trotted out showing the correct call had been made, fans and journalists raged and cried. The replacement refs just get to be the sacrificial lamb on this one instead.
      Last edited by Wage; 09-25-2012, 06:41 PM. Reason: Further thoughts

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Ref'ing thread

        Originally posted by Wage View Post
        And the best part is, all this outrage and indignation is over a call that the replacement refs actually managed to get right. .
        Uh, no they didn't. Not even close.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Ref'ing thread

          While I agree and have the same observation as it pertains to offensive pass interference, the replacement refs do not have control of the games and are overmatched.

          Now I know that everyone thinks my team gets its share of the calls, and there is something to that perception. I get that. And I also get pissed off at the regular refs every week - whether Ben's getting hit low or an offensive player pushes off or Harrison is being held (nearly. every. play.) or our defensive players get picked on for things that are difficult to avoid at full speed. But with the regular officials, when there's a blown call on one play you expect that to be the end of it. With the replacement refs, you just start watching for the snowball to grow in size until its an avalanche. The next play is worse and then the next play is even worse. After the refs butchered the pass interference call against Baltimore in the I-hate-both-teams-matchup-of-the-year Sunday night, once the crowd started the "manure" chant as Al Michaels delicately called it, what happened? The Ravens got away with a pushoff on nearly every remaining offensive play they ran, and then I'm still not sure that game winning kick was between the uprights. But the cowards might have well signaled the field goal was "good" as soon as the Ravens snapped the ball.
          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
          And life itself, rushing over me
          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Ref'ing thread

            Originally posted by Wage View Post
            Well, except the push off, which there is a 0% chance the regular refs would have called.
            yes, they have called that before.

            One example, 1998, NE vs. Buffalo. Ironically the NE coach was Pete Carroll. Offensive PI was called on the last second Drew Bledsoe pass.

            that they actually call offensive PI more than once a season.
            Yes, they realize the game is out of hand so they decide to randomly throw some flags for PI, whether it occurs or not, missing obvious ones and flagging some where there was not even contact!

            People have been waiting since week 1 for these guys to blow a call and cost a team the game.
            You mean, waiting for them to blow the last call of a game. Important difference. Many game outcomes have been affected already by multiple bad calls that happened to not be the last call of the game.

            This entire thing reminds me of the Tom Brady tuck game. No matter how many times the rules were trotted out showing the correct call had been made, fans and journalists raged and cried.
            You might be surprised that most Patriots fans, me included, think has always been a horsecrap rule. I take it you agree. Bill Polian and the competition committee disagree with you and me.

            The tuck rule has also been repeatedly reviewed and kept on the books, unfortunately. The argument as I understand it is that the refs shouldn't have to judge the intent of the QB. That is, if the QB starts to pass (even if it's a pump fake) he is in the act of attempting a pass, and is so until he has again the ball tucked away.

            Horsecrap rule, I think. Officials are not allowed to ignore horsecrap rules, though.

            The outcome of that play was called by the rules then, was called by the rules before then, and has been called by the rules many many times since then. Mike Pereira estimates that it has been called on average 10-15 times per year, every year.

            link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...1401828_2.html

            Funny though, Pereira now thinks it's time to change the rule, too, but admits " Every time we have tried to rewrite it, what we come up with was too difficult to officiate."

            http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2...rts-tuck-rule/
            Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 09-25-2012, 07:24 PM.
            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Ref'ing thread

              Originally posted by Wage View Post
              This is too funny. Can't watch any major sports programs today because of the white knuckled tantrums on every single one. And the best part is, all this outrage and indignation is over a call that the replacement refs actually managed to get right. Well, except the push off, which there is a 0% chance the regular refs would have called. In fact, despite all their faults, the one thing I have respected about the replacements is that they actually call offensive PI more than once a season. People have been waiting since week 1 for these guys to blow a call and cost a team the game. I guess they got tired of waiting, so they are going to use this as a "close enough" and start the rants they have been practicing for a month now. Add in the echo chamber effect of the internet, and we are now sitting at defcon dumb.

              Edit:
              This entire thing reminds me of the Tom Brady tuck game. No matter how many times the rules were trotted out showing the correct call had been made, fans and journalists raged and cried. The replacement refs just get to be the sacrificial lamb on this one instead.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Ref'ing thread

                Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                Uh, no they didn't. Not even close.
                Uh, yes they did.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Ref'ing thread

                  Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                  yes, they have called that before.

                  One example, 1998, NE vs. Buffalo. Ironically the NE coach was Pete Carroll. Offensive PI was called on the last second Drew Bledsoe pass.
                  You are going to go back 14 years to find evidence that the refs would normaly make the call? Either way, no one can know for certain, but do you honestly believe that the normal refs blow the offensive PI whistle there? And what is the argument at this point so we dont start moving the goalposts? Is it that it was a touchdown, or that they should have called PI?

                  Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                  Yes, they realize the game is out of hand so they decide to randomly throw some flags for PI, whether it occurs or not, missing obvious ones and flagging some where there was not even contact!
                  I've seen both good calls and bad calls from the replacements on PI. I'm not saying the guys are doing a good job, just that the outrage over this particular call is nonsense. And honestly, as a former corner, it is refreshing to see that offensive PI is still illegal in the NFL, even if sporadically.



                  Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                  You mean, waiting for them to blow the last call of a game. Important difference. Many game outcomes have been affected already by multiple bad calls that happened to not be the last call of the game.
                  This is different than every other year how? Every single year blown calls alter the outcome of games, and every year we complain. Again, I'm not even defending the replacements, just pointing out the lunacy of this particular rant.


                  Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                  You might be surprised that most Patriots fans, me included, think has always been a horsecrap rule. I take it you agree. Bill Polian and the competition committee disagree with you and me.

                  The tuck rule has also been repeatedly reviewed and kept on the books, unfortunately. The argument as I understand it is that the refs shouldn't have to judge the intent of the QB. That is, if the QB starts to pass (even if it's a pump fake) he is in the act of attempting a pass, and is so until he has again the ball tucked away.

                  Horsecrap rule, I think. Officials are not allowed to ignore horsecrap rules, though.

                  The outcome of that play was called by the rules then, was called by the rules before then, and has been called by the rules many many times since then. Mike Pereira estimates that it has been called on average 10-15 times per year, every year.

                  link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...1401828_2.html

                  Funny though, Pereira now thinks it's time to change the rule, too, but admits " Every time we have tried to rewrite it, what we come up with was too difficult to officiate."

                  http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2...rts-tuck-rule/
                  I think you are missing my point on the tuck rule. Whether or not I like a rule has absolutely no bearing on how the officials should call the rule. Call the rule as it is written, that's the job of an official. If it's a bad rule, let them review it at the end of the year.


                  And Vapacersfan, thanks for showing that picture. It shows exactly how everyone is missing point. That photo shows what was going on AFTER the play was over. Tate could be out getting a hotdog in that picture and it would not change the fact that it was a touchdown. Tate had both feet down, with both hands on the ball before everyone went to the pile. The play stops that instant. Touchdown. There is a reason the defense can not cause a fumble in their own endzone. It's because the play ceases the split second that the offense scores the touchdown. What Jennings does with the ball after that means absolutely nothing.

                  It's hard to find a good still photo, but at this point the play is over. Tate has the football in his hands with both feet down. The play ends this instant.
                  Last edited by Wage; 09-25-2012, 11:40 PM. Reason: Added Photo

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Ref'ing thread

                    ^ I think I can help clear this up. Tate is actually the guy in the blue uniform.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Ref'ing thread

                      Wage, you're not gonna find much support for that theory, we all have eyes and minds. Had the refs seen and made the correct call 1) for pass interference prior to the catch, and then 2) not hastily called it a touchdown 2 seconds later without consultuing one another (when both refs called opposite of each other), the play likely would have been a lot easier to review and correct. Two massive ref mistakes. And that is what everyone is in an uproar about. Whether or not Tate caught the ball with his pinky isn't the real issue. It was the two points I just listed. They missed pass interference, and they hastily called touchdown on the field without consultation.

                      And Tate did not catch the ball --- his hand (looks like the back of it), came into contact with a ball that a defender actually caught. If the "letter of the law" constitutes that as a catch, then by damn, the law needs to be revisited. No one in their right mind, rules be damned, considered that a true catch by Tate. The spirit of the game was assaulted last night, and then the powers that be are trying to wave their Jedi hands and tell us "this is not an interception, it is a catch by Golden Tate, just take our word for it." Problem is.... we're not that stupid, Goodell.

                      They claimed the play wasn't conclusive. ********. Watch it. Jennings catches the damn ball. They called it a touchdown on review because they didn't want to get lynched by the Seattle crowd, and you KNOW it would've gotten real ugly, because that entire stadium was whipped into a frenzy by that point. Green Bay had already left the field. The refs didn't even know what to do about the extra point. The entire fiasco was a cluster****, all caused by the ref's inability to do their jobs correctly and also their inability to control the situation.

                      And on the topic of reviews, why are some plays not reviewable? That's the stupidest thing I've never understood. All plays should be reviewable. All of them.
                      Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 09-26-2012, 12:22 AM.
                      There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Ref'ing thread

                        The no call on the push doesn't bother me as bad as the called TD. I saw it on TV live and a zillion replays, it was not a simultaneous offense/defense catch IMO. I'll never change my opinion on that, no matter what the NFL says. It seems about 99.9% think it was a bad call too.
                        "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

                        Comment


                        • Re: Ref'ing thread

                          Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                          Wage, you're not gonna find much support for that theory, we all have eyes and minds. Had the refs seen and made the correct call 1) for pass interference prior to the catch, and then 2) not hastily called it a touchdown 2 seconds later without consultuing one another (when both refs called opposite of each other), the play likely would have been a lot easier to review and correct. Two massive ref mistakes. And that is what everyone is in an uproar about. Whether or not Tate caught the ball with his pinky isn't the real issue. It was the two points I just listed. They missed pass interference, and they hastily called touchdown on the field without consultation.

                          And Tate did not catch the ball --- his hand (looks like the back of it), came into contact with a ball that a defender actually caught. If the "letter of the law" constitutes that as a catch, then by damn, the law needs to be revisited. No one in their right mind, rules be damned, considered that a true catch by Tate. The spirit of the game was assaulted last night, and then the powers that be are trying to wave their Jedi hands and tell us "this is not an interception, it is a catch by Golden Tate, just take our word for it." Problem is.... we're not that stupid, Goodell.

                          They claimed the play wasn't conclusive. ********. Watch it. Jennings catches the damn ball. They called it a touchdown on review because they didn't want to get lynched by the Seattle crowd, and you KNOW it would've gotten real ugly, because that entire stadium was whipped into a frenzy by that point. Green Bay had already left the field. The refs didn't even know what to do about the extra point. The entire fiasco was a cluster****, all caused by the ref's inability to do their jobs correctly and also their inability to control the situation.

                          And on the topic of reviews, why are some plays not reviewable? That's the stupidest thing I've never understood. All plays should be reviewable. All of them.

                          After listening to sports broadcast for the first half of the day, I didn't expect ANY support honestly

                          Again, it seems to me this is tuck rule all over again. The catch was called correctly by the rules. There are no degrees of possession. There is no such thing as a "ball to chest" rule. Reciever has hands on the ball when a defender has the ball in his hands, it's a touchdown. Don't like the rule, change it. But not during a game. And I simply refuse to be offended by the no call on the offensive PI. With the normal refs, recievers push off on damn near half their receptions, and it's almost never called.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Ref'ing thread

                            The refs had one chance on real time to see the play and make a call. The fact that one ref seemingly wanted to call touchdown while another wanted to call interception would IMHO tend to strengthen the case for simultaneous possession... at least as far as making the call in real time. Then once the call is made I'm still thinking the refs were pretty limited in what they could look for on replay on a scoring play.

                            I agree with the idea that people have just been waiting for there to be a penalty that was so egregious it cost someone a game and this has blown up because it was close enough. But unless you can do more on replay of a scoring play than I think then these refs called this by the book. What happened in real time was too close and freaky to think the reg refs would've gotten the initial call right either...
                            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                            ------

                            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                            -John Wooden

                            Comment


                            • Re: Ref'ing thread

                              How can the play be over the second Tate has the ball in the air? He hasn't established himself in bounds and he loses control before that happens.

                              Also, even when you're the only player with possession and even when you've proven you're in bounds you still are required to control the ball after those things are established to constitute a catch. Tate didn't even control it through landing in bounds.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Ref'ing thread

                                I still maintain that before the play was called, Jennings steps out of bounds (with his hands on the ball) and should then be ineligible.
                                Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X